An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Cardiology Researchers and Clinicians: Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundComplementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has been increasing in popularity for patients with cardiovascular illnesses. However, little is known about perceptions of CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. In response, this study aimed to assess the practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians.MethodsAn anonymous, digital cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and clinicians who have published articles in cardiology journals indexed in OVID MEDLINE. The survey was sent to 37,915 researchers and clinicians and included 5-point Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to analyze open-ended responses.ResultsAmong the 309 respondents, the majority (n=173, 55.99%) identified themselves as both researchers and clinicians in the field of cardiology. While 45.78% (n=114) of participants expressed agreement regarding the safety of CAIM therapies, 44.40% (n=111) disagreed on their efficacy. Most respondents believed in the value of conducting research on CAIM therapies (79.2%, n=198). Respondents perceived mind-body therapies (57.61%, n=159) and biologically based practices (47.46%, n=131) as the most promising interventions for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular conditions. Biofield therapies were the least favoured for integration into mainstream medical practices (11.93%, n=29).ConclusionsWhile cardiology researchers and clinicians perceive CAIM therapies to have potential, many are hesitant about integrating such interventions into the current medical system due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and standardized products. Insights from this study may help establish educational resources for healthcare practitioners.Clinical PerspectiveWhat is New?While complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) therapies are generally perceived by cardiology professionals as being safe and as having multiple potential benefits, there remains a strong need for additional research and training on CAIM interventions.In this study, support for CAIM therapies varied by modality, with mind-body therapies and biologically based practices garnering the most favor and biofield therapies garnering the least.What Are the Clinical Implications?Given the rising demand for CAIM interventions and the significance of lifestyle factors for cardiac conditions, there is a critical need for cardiology professionals to access CAIM-based research and education to meet patients’ needs.